Right, Reconstructionist, not Liberal.
I attended a yeshiva that considered itself orthodox. Classes were coed,
however, and the political content was kibbutz socialist--the hope was that
we would end up on kibbutzim carrying rifles. When I mention my yeshiva in
most orthodox circles the reaction is usually a sneer--too liberal by far.
There were synagogue services at the school--those weren't coed. The torah
and the historical books of the bible were our primer during the hebrew
part of the day. In the english part of the day the curriculum was
thoroughly secular. There was little discussion, in hebrew or english, of
the literal truth of the Genesis account(s) of creation beyond a
questioning of what "day" meant--was each day a million years? a billion
years? There was a lot of discussion of difficult-to-swallow Biblical
events--David's collection of foreskins, various decimations, etc. Nobody
had any problem with the magical stuff--we were little kids. And I have no
idea how the sciences were handled in the higher grades, tho the school did
produce a fair number of physicists.
There's a saying that where there are two jews there are three opinions.
Jews love to argue. Except me.
Mark
At 09:05 AM 5/6/2005, you wrote:
>Mark Weiss wrote:
>
>>Not so esay to answer. There were at last count four versions of Judaism
>>with a couple of subdivisions: Orthodox (subgroup Hasids), Conservative,
>>Reform, and a recent addition that I think calls itself Liberal.
>
>The one I know because my first synagogue was part of the "movement" was
>Reconstructionist. It was founded by Orthodox-ordained Mordecai
>Menachem Kaplan first as a school of thought, then later through the
>work of his son-in-law Ira Eisenstein, as a formal branch of Judaism
>with its own synagogues, a seminary near Philadelphia, etc. Kaplan had
>enormous influence, particularly on Reform and Conservative branches,
>i.e., he pushed them further to the right in some areas but opened the
>door to ordaining women as both rabbis and cantors. Some Orthodox
>groups put him into what is called "cherem," basically the equivalent of
>excommunication. The phrase that probably got people hot and bothered
>was "Tradition should have a voice, not a veto." At the core was
>decision-making based on a sense Jewish peoplehood instead of strictly
>Jewish law--a sense of custom as well as adherence to Talmudic rulings.
>
>When the Conservatives voted to ordain women, a portion of the faculty
>of Jewish Theological Seminary resigned and opened their own seminary in
>Westchester County: men only. I don't know if it survived.
>
>Don't ask me to define "peoplehood": I apostasized in 1998 but still
>self-identify. On Wednesday someone sent me the link to the Yad Vashem
>memorial site. I ran a search on the name "Wolman" and 920 names popped
>up. I was sitting at my desk here in tears. I'm sure not all of them
>were "mine," but enough most likely. And I get back to the most
>violently-handled question I encountered in the 1990s: WHO is a Jew?
>You would be surprised (or maybe not) at the vicious infighting between
>the hard-right Orthodox and everyone else. Or at the internecine
>warfare within denominations. Many Chasidim hate each other depending
>on sect: Lubavitch are considered goyim by Satmars, and there has been
>infrequent but repellent violence. More than once I was told that I was
>not really a Jew because I didn't observe all the mitzvahs
>(commandments) of the whole Torah, which includes the Talmud and
>commentaries. Then, when I implied my intention to go elsewhere--no,
>the word is "convert"--I was onscreen screamed at that I would die as a
>Jew and be judged as one. This defines having it both ways.
>
>>There are
>>also the vast numbers of unaffiliated but Jewish-identified (myself
>>included). Of these, only some of the orthodox (including in theory all
>>hasids) are literalists. But that's not the whole of it. I have a friend
>>who's both an ordained Orthodox rabbi (without congregation) and a senior
>>neurological researcher at a major institution. I asked him once if he
>>was
>>a literalist. With some hesitation he said he was. Didn't that conflict
>>with his scientific beliefs? Long pause, then: "It's like this. There's a
>>set of beliefs, but some are less essential to espouse or even believe
>>in.
>>The creation story is one of those. I choose not to be concerned about
>>it."
>
>I believe her name is/was Rosalind Yalow...a physician/researcher on the
>faculty at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York who won the
>Nobel Prize in Medicine 20+ years ago. She was also a frum (observant)
>Jewish woman. I don't know how she did it. Probably the way Mark's
>friend managed it. Keeping the Sabbath as a day of rest is a core
>value; mikveh for women is a core value; thrice-daily prayer (esp. for
>men) is a core value; the laws of a kosher diet are a core value. Much
>but probably not all is based on Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith. He
>also was a physician. As for the Creation story...he did well to stay
>clear. As the late Joseph Soloveitchik pointed out, there are two
>Creation stories, one behind the other. I'm sure there is a reason, but
>unless you've got a mind like Rabbi Soloveitchik's, the apparent
>confusion in what is supposed to be a perfect text can create problems
>for someone who is indeed a literalist.
>
>>Which means, at a guess, that in the US, out of maybe 6 million Jews,
>>there
>>may be as many as half a million literalists, but only a few are
>>likely to
>>be active propagators of their views.
>
>There are also "cafeteria Jews" just as there are cafeteria Catholics,
>Anglicans, probably Muslims.
>
>>Moishe Yizzik
>
>Ken, the artist formerly known as Kalman Tuvya ben Yaakov
|